My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8A, Planning Case 12-001 - Zoning Code Amendment - Expansion of Single and 2-Family Nonconforming Dwellings
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
02-13-12-R
>
8A, Planning Case 12-001 - Zoning Code Amendment - Expansion of Single and 2-Family Nonconforming Dwellings
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/24/2024 11:14:44 AM
Creation date
6/21/2012 3:15:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Draft February 8, 2012, Planning Commission Minutes <br />A. Planning Case 12-001 — Zoning Code Amendment; City of Arden Hills; Expansion <br />of Nonconforming Single-family Properties — Public Hearing <br />City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed that at the February 22, 2011, joint work <br />session with the City Council and the Planning Commission, a discussion was held <br />regarding several possible zoning code amendments. One such discussion item was the <br />allowance of certain types of expansions of nonconforming structures. At present, the <br />City Code allows for the repair, replacement, improvement and maintenance, but not the <br />expansion, of nonconforming uses and structures. While this regulation functions well <br />for the vast majority of commercial uses in the City, it can make small improvements to <br />nonconforming single and two-family homes difficult because any expansion requires a <br />variance. Applications such as these make up the majority of the variance applications <br />that the City processes. She provided an aerial view of a typical property as an example. <br />She demonstrated where additions could be made to the two sample properties. City <br />Planner Meagan Beekman showed an example where a house encroached on all setbacks. <br />Chair Larson asked if whether that house wasn't too close to the lake and questioned if <br />the DNR would need to approve. Ms. Beekman stated the DNR code does not supersede <br />the Cities. <br />City Planner Meagan Beekman continued at the same work session, Staff was directed to <br />proceed with revisions to the Zoning Code, similar to the Front Porch Ordinance, which <br />would create circumstances where certain types of development could occur without the <br />need for a variance. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated Staff prepared draft language <br />which was presented to the Planning Commission at their November 9, 2011, work <br />session. The Planning Commission suggested a few modifications at that meeting, and <br />Staff presented a revised draft to the City Council at their November 28, 2011, work <br />session. At that time, the City Council directed Staff to move forward with formally <br />presenting the revisions to the Planning Commission and holding a public hearing. <br />City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed the discussion stating one of the most common <br />issues that arise when residents call to inquire about home improvements is that their <br />houses are already considered legally nonconforming; they were constructed during a <br />time when setbacks were not as great as they are now, and any expansion of the house is <br />not allowed without a variance. For example, many homes constructed prior to 1970 or <br />so, which include nearly all of the homes in the southwest corner of the City, were <br />constructed with 30=foot fronf yard setbacks; however, the City Code now requires a 40- <br />foot front yard sefback. Similarly, homes constructed with five-foot side yard setbacks in <br />the R-1 District now have a ten-foot minimum setback. The City does not allow <br />expansions within existing setbacks of nonconforming houses; therefore, these homes <br />cannot be expanded without a variance. Because these are not unique situations in the <br />City, many of these situations are not clear candidates for variances. Residents can <br />choose to submit a variance application, which takes between 60 and 90 days to process, <br />or may choose to forego the improvement to avoid the variance process all together. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.